Leviathon

I guess we will see how well the baddons file does at stopping addons if that is what is for. You say they can do whatever they want with their code but I think you are missing the part of Blizzard can also tell you what they want in their game.

 

Lazare

Redroach - nope, doesn't work that way. The only way an addon author wouldn't have ownership of an addon is if it was a derived work - but copyright law and the relevant case law is quite clear that programs written using an API don't qualify as derivative works of the API. Blizzard has every right to modify the API, ban any given addon, remove the entire addon system, ban any given author, or shut down the entire game - but they don't own the addons any more than Microsoft owns all Windows programs.

This has also been hashed out fairly clearly with regard to game console manufacturers, who have historically gone to great lengths to control what can and cannot appear on their platform (for example, the old Nintendo/Tengen disputes). Those disputes, however, tend to revolve around trademarks, patents, copy protection circumvention, reverse engineering, and breech of licensing agreements, none of which apply here. Off the top of my head I can't recall a console maker ever winning with the argument that "we can prohibit distribution of this game solely because it was written for our console".

(Note: The above is not legal advice. If you decide to become a rogue addon developer, living life on the edge by making addons that actually ask for donations, and then Blizzard sues you and wins I will be shocked, but it won't be my problem.)

 

wilfan

I'll go one step further and say it's very likely Blizzard would sue you and that it would win, considering how the Glider lawsuit went.

Doesn't change that addons are not Blizzard's "property", though.

 

Szynszyla

How can you even compare glider case to addon policy. This things are totally on different law grounds. It's again comparing apples to oranges.
Thing that i have hard times to understand, could someone give links to a proper law codes (US), under the ground of that case?
Another thing that struck me is that EU and US polices might and probably are different and especially on the EU grounds blizzard policy will not have legal force, unless of course they will introduce a software system of blocking addons from being used, but they will have no rights to claim anything on their policy ground.

I'm sure I'm not alone law student here who can put some input, also im sorry for my still poor law english, trying to study it myself.

 

giuliocc

Interesting problem.. As has been mentioned.. This gives Blizz the right to sue your a$$ out of existence if it chooses to enforce it. From Blizz's POV, if some kid (or kidult), or worse yet, another organisation with capital steps up and builds the most amazing UI mod that changes gamgeplay and also take money for it.. Blizz doesnt want anyone else making serious cash off their work. (But they might not notice at any rate whilst they count $165M+ per month in subscription fees). So they can write a patch to shut you down, and also the legal power to put your lights out.

Donations though sound passable as a work around. As long as you allow people to download it for free and take donations as a separate event you might not raise any probs.. just don't make a big deal that you're making cash out of it on your website... maybe say.. "Show your appreciation"..

 

phulshof

I'll try to give some input, even though I am not a lawyer. I am however a part-time lobbyist in the field of copyright, so I do get in touch with the different laws.

As far as I can see, the court decided that to load WoW into memory is a copy falling under copyright legislation. It also decided that the EULA covering the purchase is legally enforcable. As such it concluded that people violating the EULA by loading WoW into RAM while using Glider were infringing copyright, and since the only function of Glider is to be loaded with WoW, the authors of Glider might be guilty of contributary copyright infringement.

An EULA being enforcable is something not seen in many countries, or even many of the US states. Furthermore, as far as I know, European law does not consider temporary copies (as made in RAM) needed to make a program function as a falling under copyright law. As such, I doubt Blizzard would get a similar verdict in Europe.

Having said that: Blizzard is of course completely within its right to decide if they will allow a certain add-on to run in combination with their servers. In most countries (and US states) however, they have no say whatsoever on what independent developers do and do not do with their time, nor how they will distribute the fruits of that labor. If they ban it from the servers however (including the users that use it), they are within their legal rights, as dumb as some of us (including me) might think it to be.

 

Antiphonal

Well, aside from the legality, which I'm not qualified to judge, I think I understand their motivation.

For paid addons, that is fairly standard. I remember id software had a policy against paid mods as well. If you are charging for it, and have a business around it (even if it is a self-employment business), then you need to purchase a license. DooM license was very expensive, if I recall.

For the nag screens or begging messages, I think they have something like this in mind: Blizzard seems very interested in the overall user experience in their game, and they go to some lengths to ensure that the player, while playing, has a particular quality of experience. If the player is having to put up with cripple-ware, nag-ware, or spam-ware then this is detrimental to the player experience as a whole. Trying to remember not to right-click somewhere so that you don't get a big dialogue saying, "Sorry, that feature is only available in the Pro-Ultimate edition - for only $15!!!" is just something they want to avoid. Releasing an addon that generates so many errors that it drops the frame-rate in half on all but the most powerful machines is almost as bad.

I think nearly all of the addons out there will not be effected, since most are itch-scratch kind of things (chatsounds, redrange, gatherer, etc...) or have releases after major patch incompatibilies and get a new feature here and there as the author or maintainer desires. Paypal donations act as kind of a tip jar, which is fine. The problem is for addons like QuestHelper that require a fair bit of hours to maintain and the author lives off those donations. I think then the onus is shifted to the download sites (author's website, WoWInterface, Curse, etc...) to make the donation button more obvious. If the Curse auto-updater had a donate button next to each mod a person used, it might accomplish something close to the simple chat message on login that QuestHelper currently uses.

On the other hand, this might signal the end of the high-maintenance, ultra-package mod. That would be unfortunate, but I can see _why_ they did it.

 

Kuthumii

Blizzard has every right to make this change. Addons RELY on the game to function. Without WoW the addon wouldn't exist or perform its function.

Is it enforceable? Absolutely. Just because we don't know how doesn't mean they don't already have a system set up or a system in development to ban rogue addons.

You can still ask for money, just not using Blizzard's game; having a message on your addon in game or having it send a message on login IS using Blizzard's property for your gain.

As far as legal actions? Who knows, I doubt any addon author could afford to fight Blizzard in a lawsuit, so perhaps simply the threat of a lawsuit would stop most authors from going "rogue."

 

Szynszyla

I think it shouldn't be discussed, whether blizzard has rights to change and update their engine to not allow usage for certain mods and addons they feel like as its obvious.
Discused should be only the point 1-2 , 5 of their new policy as it's their only hard manouvre part to deal with according to code.

I think you use too strong words. Most important part that many who never studied law, think that if there is X code saying Y that means it can be interpreted solely based on itself.
There are 2 mistakes in that
1st that you cannot interprete alone paragraf or article in the code becouse it not a legal norm. Legal norm consists of many paragrafs and articles.
2nd think is that, a lower validity, force legal norm can be contradictory to higher force legal norm but If it is, the higher level legal norm is to be the one you have to follow. The lower force is non existand in such case. If 2 legal norms are the same force contradict to each other, than it's a job for legislator to fix the norms.

It is kinda complecated problem for person like me who is from Poland, that uses completly different law system than US but basics remain the same for both systems. We know there are functioning API legal norms towards the copyright problems, we also know that case system in US and the last won blizzard case with glider makes it possible for me, than if it happens that API law will allow users for point 1,2 and 5 pointed in blizzard policy after a won law suit by the mod authors, that the glider case battle might not be finished yet.

 

Kuthumii

Try not taking my post apart and taking it out of context.

Point one I made was that the addon authors would make zero profit and their addons would see zero use if it wasn't for WoW. Period. You cannot argue that.

My second point was that they can enforce this policy of banning addons if the authors don't comply. They can change their coding to block "rogue" addons. Just because some people don't know how it would be done doesn't mean it can't be done. No where did I argue that any legal action could be taken, I simple stated they can enforce their policy and if they threatened legal action most authors would comply as a lawsuit with Blizzard is far to costly for most addon authors.

Points 1, 2, & 5 that you want to discuss?

5: They are simply asking authors not to ask for money in game, which isn't much, imo.
1: Point one is them making sure others do not make a profit of their property. (Argueably)
2: Two? Have no idea why the code would have to be visible. (Can anyone explain why they would want this?)

 

◊ Kaubel

"Blizzard is dumb/smart, can/can't enforce this, and it is/isn't within their legal right to do it. Also I'm not a lawyer but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express."

That's basically all this thread can produce, so I see no point in keeping it active.